PDA

View Full Version : AVM Part 2 Alinement



Blightedmarsh
2013-05-09, 01:30 PM
Adventurers! Villains! Monsters!

The purpose of this exercise is to identify and redress the base underlying problems of 3.5/pathfinder and create a “Fixed” and rebalanced D20 system where pathfinder failed.

Part 1 Magic/mundane imbalance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281984)

Alignment
Alignment is one of if not the most divisive things about dungeons and dragons FULL STOP. The difference between objective and subjective morality, always X races and the stupid X mentality.

The object of this thread is to create a coherent alinement system based on the old 3X3 grid that is A) a nuanced resource for character, story and world building as well as B) avoid raging flame wars and troll stupid alinements.
Morality

Divine mandate

Good and evil exist, that existence is an objective fact. What good and evil actually mean, what the scope of good and evil pertains to is subject to divine mandate. This is because the energies of good and evil are a lot older than mankind and originally had nothing to do with anything so human as morality.

A god will have a list of acts (and/or intentions, practices and beings) they find abhorrent and a similar list they find resplendent. For a good god and his followers those resplendent articles are good and the abhorrent evil. Conversely the same is true for evil divinities.

A divine pantheon will attempt to reach an evolving consensus on what is good, what is evil and what falls between. This consensus is generally a reflection of the social mores of the cultures that worship them. There is a great deal of overlap between different divine mandates however conflicts and gaps do exist; we call this phenomena moral dissonance.

Opposition

Good creates and empowers a caricature of evil. Evil in of itself is far more nuanced, more rounded than evil as opposed to good. True evil can and will ham it up to draw on the power of that opposition.

Fallen good persons tends to be far more “evil” than evil itself, to the point of disturbing the actual dread lords. This is because their concept of evil is as a rejection of good rather than as a thing in and of itself. Conversely redeemed evil tends to try to be more far virtuous than actual good people.

In reality there is a great deal of overlap between good and evil. The ethical difference is more about perspectives than something fundamental. Good and evil people can and do live side by side, often with little conflict and little cognition of the difference between them.

Honour-Dishonour

Certain things are universal; they have nothing to do alignment or axis. They are absolutely right or wrong and they will be understood and recognized by most everyone. Different people will understand honour in different contexts and emphasis. To be honourable is to be respectable, to be publically dishonourable is to be the worst of the worst.
Power: Everyone who is anyone respects/fears comparative strength, everyone.

Courage: Although YMMV as to the exact definition.

Oaths: A man gives his word and that’s that. Few will ever be willing to deal with a known oath breaker.

Loyalty: Goes without saying. Of course this does not preclude intercene conflict, war and murder.

Challenge: Whilst many think that they are silly or immoral few will interfere with a fair challenge.

Axis

Good

The philosophy of good:
Humanity is essentially a deeply flawed creation; but with the potential for greatness. This potential is what makes humanity great, and that it is the flaws that shackle people, holding them back. By denying or expunging these vile impurities through goodness humanity can be brought to greatness.

Good exists to be the shining light that guides the way; that shows the golden path to the poor lost mortals wandering in the moral darkness. It is the duty of good beings to lead by example, to protect the innocent and to oppose those who revel in the darkness.

Good is the opposite of evil. Without good mortals would drown in a sea of darkness, humanity would be lost to itself. Remember to be humane is to be human.

Evil
The philosophy of evil is thus:
Humanity is essentially a deeply “flawed” creation; as it was meant to be. Fear, suffering, hatred, anger, lust, vanity, pride, cruelty, selfishness and greed; these things are necessary to our makeup, take away one and you take something precious away from the whole. It is only through our flaws, our vices are we truly capable of being human.

Evil exits as a natural driving force. It makes us stronger, smarter, freer and more humane. It is the potential for evil that makes mortals more than just cleaver animals.

Evil opposes good. Without evil mortals would not have the room to be creatures of their own agency, to be humans at all. Remember that in essence evil |live.

Law

The philosophy of law is thus:
Humanity is essentially a deeply flawed creation; alone we are incomplete. We are limited, small, brief. Law enjoins us to become part of something far greater than ourselves; that multiplies the innate strength of humanity exponentially. It is only through law that we become truly whole.

Law exists as the cohesive binding force. It allows us to cooperate, it is the foundation on which all is built. It is through law that we become more than frightened cavemen, we become civilized.

Law opposes chaos. Without law mortals are alone, divided, fallen. Remember that in essence humanity is more than the sum of its parts.

Chaos

The philosophy of Chaos is thus:
Humanity is essentially a child of chaos; and chaos we must endure. Chaos is all around us; it suffuses our being, our works and is the natural state of mankind. To oppose chaos is ultimately futile, to deny it is to deny ourselves. It is only through chaos that we are true to ourselves.

Chaos exists; it is an emergent property. It allows mortals agency, freedom, identity; in other words humanity. Chaos is our forge, our cradle and to chaos we will always return.

Chaos opposes law. Without chaos mortals cease to be relevant; we abandon ourselves, we simply cease to be. Remember in essence humanity is chaos incarnate.

Alignments

Mostly TBD.

Chaotic good
People are naturally good, when left to their own devices people become better.

Chaotic neutral
“The people who are ruled least are ruled best”

Chaotic evil
“Because it feels sooo good”

Neutral good
“I just want to help people”

True neutral
“leave me alone”

Neutral evil
“what in it for me”

Lawful evil
“I am sure we can make a deal”

Lawful neutral
“I am the law”

Lawful good
“Nanny knows best”

JusticeZero
2013-05-09, 01:50 PM
So... in order to fight against the many conflicting confusing standards, you propose another standard?
Eeh, as i've noted the first thing you need to know is "who is imposing an alignment system and why". The game i'm running has no divine magic, ergo no crunch, so there's no point in tracking alignment whatsoever.

Sith_Happens
2013-05-09, 02:02 PM
So... in order to fight against the many conflicting confusing standards, you propose another standard?

Of course, haven't you read xkcd (http://xkcd.com/927/)?:smalltongue:

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-09, 02:10 PM
Imposed in game (the gods, the creator extra) or in RL namely the GM.

The big problem with the current system is that evil does not make any kind of sense. Evil societies simply don't work, people would not openly define themselves as evil.

I am going for a more phillosophical aproch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8y6DJAeolo) to the whole concept.

By redefining the basic axis, the very nature of good and evil, law and chaos I hope to create a new framework of alinements.

As for tracking; if its not important why bother? This is much more to inspire and inform role playing and world building. Alignment crunch should be secondary to that.


Of course, haven't you read xkcd?

So true.

JusticeZero
2013-05-09, 02:32 PM
For roleplaying, alignment is more of a restriction than a benefit. If you want good roleplaying, you don't want alignments to pigeonhole people. The alignments just tie into a bunch of crunch involving the priestly agro-divinities, and really is only useful to figure out who the *gods* like and dislike.

Blightedmarsh
2013-05-09, 03:01 PM
For roleplaying, alignment is more of a restriction than a benefit. If you want good roleplaying, you don't want alignments to pigeonhole people. The alignments just tie into a bunch of crunch involving the priestly agro-divinities, and really is only useful to figure out who the *gods* like and dislike

And in many respect I agree. The whole divine mandate and opposition stuff under morality reflects this.

But as to the philosophy of good an evil, let me put it like this.

An intruder come into a home and threatens a persons family.

Under the good perspective:

A good person takes up arms to defend his family. Their Love and their desire to defend their loved ones is righteous and thus the bloodshed is both necessary and right. It is that love and desire to protect that lends strength to the arm and righteousness to the cause.

Under the evil perspective:

An evil person takes up arms to defend their family. Their fear of loss and their hatred and anger at those who would take away their loved ones is both right and natural. It is hate and fear that led strength to the arm, that makes the bloodshed purposeful.


In both cases exactly the same events happen but from the two perspectives they have completely different meanings, conflicting significances.